Movement and SR

[EpicureanDM]

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

This is exactly what I envision for the next time I will GM RQ: Taking RQG, replacing all the combat chapter by the RQIII one, adding a few things (the various specials effects, for example) and changing what is necessary to be integrated with the rest of RQG.

I'm trying to avoid this if I can (but it's cool if that's your plan; it's tempting to me!). My preference is to try and play the new edition with minimal tweaking. Those tweaks will definitely come from RQ3, though.

I'll provide you with a proper reply later tonight, @deleriad. Thanks for the details above.

Edited March 21, 2019 by EpicureanDM

[Kloster]

51 minutes ago, EpicureanDM said:

I'm trying to avoid this if I can (but it's cool if that's your plan; it's tempting to me!). My preference is to try and play the new edition with minimal tweaking. Those tweaks will definitely come from RQ3, though.

In fact, I don't like houseruling, and I am currently playing RQG RAW (or, more properly Rules as we understand them), because I am not the GM, and also because we wanted to test as much as possible the new rules, but there are in the combat rules some points that (for me) don't feel right, and some other we don't understand how to play it. The numerous threads on the way to count damage or to count Strike Ranks are a proof that there is place for interpretation.

[Bill the barbarian]

So based on the last couple of letters and with this one we are at two votes for giving the rules a fair shake before implementing the home rules we all know are coming. I figure I will implement at least a few to plug holes that will exist until an official supplement comes out, that I buy, that does the exact same thing. I would love to play with none, but the players will want at least one pet rule, a hole will exist briefly until filled. or I will in my hubris figure I know the game better than my betters. 

Knowing I have choices, many choices and that I am capable of home ruling and that there is always the forums... as well as this pretty cool game, I think I will do fine

Cheers

[Sumath]

9 hours ago, Joerg said:

Sounds sincerely wrong to me.

And to be honest, your 'Schrodinger's combatants' of indeterminate time and space sound like the epitome of wrong to me, so let's leave it there, shall we?

[Mechashef]

Another situation, and I'm aware I'm probably really getting into areas that fall into the "whatever your GM rules" arena:

Bazza has a Dex SR of 2, a Siz SR of 1 and a weapon with a SR of 3, for a total SR of 6.

Gabby has a Dex SR of 1, a Siz SR of 1 and a weapon with a SR of 2, for a total of 4. 

Their weapons and shields are in hand (prepared)

The combatants are 15 metres apart

 

Statement of Intent for Gabby is she will stay where she is, using her sword and shield to attack or defend against anyone who comes into range

Statement of Intent for Bazza is that he will move to Gabby, attacking her with his sword and parrying her attacks with his shield.

Bazza's SR is:  2 (Dex) + 5 (Move) + 1 (Siz) + 3 (Weapon) = 11

Gabby's SR is: 1 (Dex) + 1 (Siz) + 2 (Weapon) = 4

However 

Bazza cannot attack Gabby.  The 5 SRs used for moving is greater than half his Movement Rate (half of 8 is 4) so he cannot move and then engage in melee or cast a spell.  (or so I understand).

Questions

1) Does Bazza end the round in melee range of Gabby?

2) Can Gabby attack Bazza when he arrives (presumably SR 7)?

3) Gabby doesn't need to parry and thus her player doesn't need to roll and possibly fumble.  Is that correct?

4) Assuming Gabby can attack, can Bazza attempt to parry?  

 

Thanks again for your patience.

  

[PhilHibbs]

21 minutes ago, Mechashef said:

Statement of Intent for Gabby is she will stay where she is, using her sword and shield to attack or defend against anyone who comes into range

Statement of Intent for Bazza is that he will move to Gabby, attacking her with his sword and parrying her attacks with his shield.

Bazza cannot attack Gabby.  The 5 SRs used for moving is greater than half his Movement Rate (half of 8 is 4) so he cannot move and then engage in melee or cast a spell.  (or so I understand).

That's Bazza being careless with his statement of intent, a strict reading of the rules is that Gabby gets to hit him and he gets to parry, then they start afresh the next round.

What Bazza should have said is, "I will close but not engage, unless Gabby also closes enough so that I can hit in the same round". That's what he wants, surely.

Bear in mind that the characters in the world don't know when the melee round ends or begins. There's no big counter in the sky, or galley drummer beating out the rhythm. If the distance at the start of the round leads to odd situations like this, where a different distance would mean that Bazza is not at a disadvantage in losing an attack, I'm not going to make the melee round structure affect the world. If the abstraction gets in the way of visualizing what's going on, then work around the abstraction. And to be honest I doubt that this will ever come up, and if it does, only in the first round of combat.

[EpicureanDM]

20 hours ago, deleriad said:

Now remember that in RQ3 SoI's are much looser and can be adjusted/changed by adding your DEX SR.

Yes, no changes to SoI is another change from RQ3 that we're aware of as we play RQG. I don't mind it, but if I'm going to hew closer to RQ3's SR system, I should remember it. Do you think that what I call the "Universal 5 SR Penalty" in RQG performs the same function? In RQ3, the Preparing a Weapon penalty (what I call the Universal 5 SR Penalty since it applies to other things like spellcasting) shared the same cost as changing your SoI (3 SR). If I wanted to add RQ3's flexible intent, I could apply the Universal 5 SR Penalty, I suppose.

20 hours ago, deleriad said:

The attack happens, someone loses a leg, the wave state collapses and the SR sequence resumes.

It's funny to see that metaphor since I privately dubbed our problems with sorting movement and SR as the Quantum Character Conundrum.

20 hours ago, deleriad said:

Mostly my RQ3 days consisted of me saying "you want to get to the balcony, that's about 8m away so you'll get there on your DEX SR+2. The trollkin with the loaded sling will fire at you while you're running. The other one is getting another stone so won't be able to fire until SR 6." Unless other people were involved, I would often batch a series of actions around one person or area rather than counting all the SRs.  We would generally play with some figures, various dice for markers and a sketch map to one side showing the area so distances were always somewhat approximate. A round often consisted of a bunch of discussion about what players planned to do and my feedback on what I thought that might entail, at which point they might adjust. 

That's a great jog to my memory of how we did it back in the day and for how we've been doing it in RQG, since I've been trying to use my RQ3 instincts to muddle through in opposition to what RQG's text tells me. We haven't reached the point of using figures and dice, but we're all over the sketch mapping. Our rounds are also front-loaded at the beginning as PCs figure out their SoIs and we negotiate or confirm common agreement on what the SRs will be. Once we have that, the SR sequence is locked in and we roll it out. I haven't needed to batch actions together yet, but that's a good technique to have in back of mind should the need arise.

I might start using FATE's Zones as a way of sketching out battlefields. Each zone would require approximately 4 Move to cross, turning it into a D&D-like "Move or Double-Move" framework. For now, I'll stick with RAW and to-the-meter distances unless it becomes too crazy.

Edited March 22, 2019 by EpicureanDM

[EpicureanDM]

4 hours ago, Mechashef said:

Questions

1) Does Bazza end the round in melee range of Gabby?

2) Can Gabby attack Bazza when he arrives (presumably SR 7)?

3) Gabby doesn't need to parry and thus her player doesn't need to roll and possibly fumble.  Is that correct?

4) Assuming Gabby can attack, can Bazza attempt to parry?  

My answer will likely mix RQG's and RQ3's SR designs a bit. I'll try to point out where I'm deviating from RQG when I'm smart enough to notice.

1) According to RQG, Bazza messed up his intent since, as you point out, he's limited to half his Move rating if he also wants to attack or act in the same round. This is where experience playing RQ would help avoid this mistake. Most RQ GMs would recognize Bazza's mistake and correct him before his intent is locked in: "You can't move more than half your Move rate and still attack in the same round. Do you want to declare a different intent or stick with it? If what you really intend is to get into melee range with Gabby by the end of the round, then you'll spend 5 SR, arrive on SR 7 (Bazza's DEX SR + 5, but I'm not sure where RQG ever states that movement begins on your DEX SR. That's a rule from RQ3 and maybe RQ2.), and just defend for the rest of the round." GM and players should openly discuss and agree upon what the SR sequence will be for the PCs before you start rolling dice. It avoids mistakes like this.

2) According to RQG, Bazza used 5 SR to move and can't attack when he gets to Gabby since he used more than half his Move rating during the round. I would interpret her intent to allow her to attack on SR 7 right after Bazza arrives. At the start of SR 7, Bazza arrives. Before SR 7 ends, Gabby attacks.

3) According to RQG, yes, Bazza can't attack Gabby so there's no need to parry an attack from Bazza.

4) According to RQG, yes, Bazza can parry. The timing for parries and dodges occur outside of the SR system, sort of like how Augments and Inspiration can be performed at any time and with no prior notice or declaration. You can interrupt the SR system at any point to parry or dodge.

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by EpicureanDM

[g33k]

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

There is no moment in time called "SR4". SR are not impulses ...

Agreed!  More or less, that is...there are no "impulses" defined in RQG, so saying "SR are not impulses" is... tautological, I guess.  SRs are also not supercomputers, Gungans, nanoseconds, Mi-Go, or James Tiberius Kirk.   But given the notion of "Impulses" from Ringworld RPG, we can agree that RQG SR's are not that thing.

 

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

... saying where someone is "on SR4" is meaningless... You say it's not an impulse system, then talk as if it IS an impulse system. It isn't, it's just a system for who goes first and how much you can get done in a round.

Let's not get all Quantum Mechanical about position and time:  for purposes of the tactical battlefield a character has a position at every SR -- otherwise, what will the DEX22 Elves with readied Elf-Bows be aiming at???  Granted... on some SR's there are no tactical considerations, so we may not CARE exactly where a given character is, so we may not figure out the details.

But the concept has meaning!

"SR4" includes all the actions AFTER the actions of SR3 and BEFORE the actions of SR5.

It also includes the tactical "state" of the battlefield... who is upright, who has fallen, how many Left Legs are laying around the battlefield, who is Engaged, who is not... and who is moving; and, because we need to know if a foe might be able to Engage them, aim a missle at them, target them with a spell, etc:  we need to know (or be able to determine quickly & easily) where they are.  Have they had time to complete their "I duck behind the doorway to crank my Dwarven Crossbow" action?  Are they sitting durulz for anyone to target?

 

 

[g33k]

On 3/21/2019 at 7:08 AM, EpicureanDM said:

The other rule I'm considering involves the ordering of movement and the PC's other action(s) in their SoI. If a PC declares that they'll move before doing anything else in the round, why not begin that movement on SR 1 regardless of their DEX SR? Absent a particular rule in RQG stating otherwise, is that a better or worse idea than starting on the character's DEX SR? I'm honestly not sure, so I'm interested in feedback. If they move later in the round, their movement (limited to half their Move rating since they aren't moving in Phase 2 of the combat round) is completed 1-4 SR later.

I am inclined to give an "it depends" here...

Are they CONTINUING motion begun / SoI from the prior round?  Because it's nonsensical to have them "frozen" in one place across multiple SR's of action.  If their position could matter, I think it makes sense to resolve it as continuous motion; they are moving on SR1 (and if their position during movement couldn't matter, then by definition this choice doesn't matter within the game).

Is the movement a NEW decision, a new SoI?  Because if it's a case of, "I have completed a prior action, and made a new tactical evaluation, and will begin moving to <X>" then I think a delay of DEX ranks is appropriate and correct.

 

[EpicureanDM]

37 minutes ago, g33k said:

It also includes the tactical "state" of the battlefield... who is upright, who has fallen, how many Left Legs are laying around the battlefield, who is Engaged, who is not... and who is moving; and, because we need to know if a foe might be able to Engage them, aim a missle at them, target them with a spell, etc:  we need to know (or be able to determine quickly & easily) where they are.  Have they had time to complete their "I duck behind the doorway to crank my Dwarven Crossbow" action?  Are they sitting durulz for anyone to target?

I noted this week that in a way, games like 5e train us to think this way. Everyone acts in initiative order and each combatants actions are resolved neatly and entirely on their turns. There are relatively fewer "interruptions" that might crop up when someone's movement isn't resolved completely and their opponent's action is scheduled to occur. In a way, it's like watching Zack Snyder's movie, 300, with big action scenes filled with different folks operating at the same time while the speed ramps up or slows down.

12 minutes ago, g33k said:

Is the movement a NEW decision, a new SoI?  Because if it's a case of, "I have completed a prior action, and made a new tactical evaluation, and will begin moving to <X>" then I think a delay of DEX ranks is appropriate and correct.

It's more this, but without the "new tactical evaluation," which implies a character changing their intent and RQG doesn't allow that (and neither do I yet). I would prevent a player from declaring an SoI that included motion bleeding into a new round. I'd tell them to restate it or accept less distance travelled than they want. Here are some more detailed examples. In all cases, the PC is Non-Engaged so that we don't worry about having to disengage from melee.

Example 1: PC's DEX SR is 2. Character's SoI is, "I will move behind the nearby wall that's nine meters away and cast Heal 3." Actions will occur in that order. Under my potential house rule, PC starts moving on SR 1 and is behind the wall by SR 3. Otherwise, they start on SR 2 and get there on SR 5.

Example 2: Reverse intent from Example 1. Heal first, then run to cover. Heal 3 happens on SR 4 (DEX SR 2 + 3 SR for 3 magic points in Heal 3 - discount for first magic point). PC starts their move on SR 5 and they're behind the wall by SR 8. Otherwise, their movement would start on SR 6 (Completion of Heal 3 on SR 4 + PC's DEX SR 2) and end on SR 9. 

Given that DEX SR can vary between PCs, the effect seems limited to maybe allowing PCs to squeeze one more action into 12 Strike Ranks in some situations. It doesn't seem game-breaking, but there might be some more consistent implications that would mess things up. It's primary disadvantage, as @deleriad sort of hinted at, is that there's symmetry in using DEX SR as a base for calculating SR for non-melee actions (missiles, spells, movement, non-combat). I'm a fan of rules symmetry, so there's a pull in that direction.

I suppose I'm mostly concerned about whether average RQ PCs (DEX SR 3 and SIZ SR 2) would have enough SR to both move and act in most situations. That's a baseline expectation embedded in most modern RPG players' minds thanks to 5e. PCs will often be exceptional and have more slack in their SRs, but I'd like the baseline to accommodate the average combatant. I need to think through a few hypotheticals to see if sticking to RQ3's DEX SR symmetry will produce that sort of play. I don't remember it being a problem in RQ3, so it probably won't be in RQG. But the SR system's a shaky thing in RQG's design, so I'm cautious.

[drablak]

As a physicist it's quite entertaining to see mentions of Quantum Mechanics in a thread about a bronze age RPG!  

As a GM new to RQ in general (no prior experience with RQ2 or RQ3, etc.) and RQG in particular (meaning these are the only rules that I have), threads like this made me put RQG aside until some of this is explained better. I really think a couple of examples of play, designed to illustrate the designers' intentions with regards to things like those discussed here, would go a long way in making this easier on new players/GMs like me.

[g33k]

41 minutes ago, EpicureanDM said:

I noted this week that in a way, games like 5e train us to think this way. Everyone acts in initiative order and each combatants actions are resolved neatly and entirely on their turns. There are relatively fewer "interruptions" that might crop up when someone's movement isn't resolved completely and their opponent's action is scheduled to occur...

Actually, all the way back to RQ2 (and so far as I can tell, continuing in RQG) there has been a sort of "mini-melee-round" effect in the Strike Rank system, wherein each SR's-worth of action gets fully resolved before moving to the next SR.  Did someone's sword-arm get disabled on SR4?  They cannot attack with it on SR5 when their SoI said they would.

I agree that the interface between Movement & SRs/actions needs some extra attention/clarification from Chaosium.  I just posted to the Rules thread.

[drablak]

8 minutes ago, g33k said:

I agree that the interface between Movement & SRs/actions needs some extra attention/clarification from Chaosium.  I just posted to the Rules thread.

A thread which needs more attention from Chaosium also, both in answering the questions, but also in collecting all the Q/A somewhere. 

[g33k]

49 minutes ago, EpicureanDM said:

It's more this, but without the "new tactical evaluation," which implies a character changing their intent and RQG doesn't allow that (and neither do I yet). I would prevent a player from declaring an SoI that included motion bleeding into a new round. I'd tell them to restate it or accept less distance travelled than they want.

Not a new SoI replacing a SoI within the same melee round; sorry for being unclear!  I meant a new SoI on a new round.

However, I would allow a SoI to allow a character to begin moving and still be moving at the end of the round, planning to keep moving next round, with the SoI next round being something along the lines of "keep moving (all round, into next round)" or "Finish moving, and Cast / Engage in melee / etc."

 

Is the movement this round (this round SoI) a continuation of movement begun last round (last round SoI was "move all round long (or to position X; or until event Y; or etc)")?  Then you're still in motion from last round, go on SR1.

Were you doing something ELSE at the end of last round?  Combat, casting, whatever.  Then SoI for movement is a new thing happening, a new decision the PC made, a new action undertaken.  Go on your DEX SR.

 

[g33k]

On 3/21/2019 at 8:17 AM, Joerg said:

There is no weird turn by turn movement of people in Glorantha. If someone has their weapon ready, anybody running by will be a the sharp end of their weapon if they declare so, strike ranks be damned. The example makes it sound like there is a pause in battle every 12 seconds until the fastest people start acting. That's simply not the case.

And yes, it can mean that the second NPC bypassed gets to strike before the first NPC bypassed gets to do so. So what - they will have moved slightly. It still results in two (or three) attacks rolled at the person trying to bypass them before arriving at the selected target.

The ordering CAN matter, because someone with a low SR may bypass a defender and get an attack on another party, due to their low SR.

What if the later-SR attack of the bypassed defender proves disabling -- that is, the low-SR attacker got dropped by the defender, short of the target?

[drablak]

Quote

There is no weird turn by turn movement of people in Glorantha. If someone has their weapon ready, anybody running by will be a the sharp end of their weapon if they declare so, strike ranks be damned.

By the same token, why would anyone be constrained by what they stated in their SOI then, or do you let people change their minds? That's a question I had regarding SOI some time ago, because I think the order that people state their SOI matters.

Edited March 22, 2019 by drablak
clarifying syntax

[drablak]

35 minutes ago, g33k said:

However, I would allow a SoI to allow a character to begin moving and still be moving at the end of the round, planning to keep moving next round, with the SoI next round being something along the lines of "keep moving (all round, into next round)" or "Finish moving, and Cast / Engage in melee / etc."

Doesn't that fall under the phase 2 rules? That's another confusing part (for me).

[g33k]

1 hour ago, drablak said:

Doesn't that fall under the phase 2 rules? That's another confusing part (for me).

I only do "Phase 2" movement when 2 conditions are met:

1 - The moving SoI involves moving as the entirety SoI, and never becoming Engaged.

2 - Every other SoI (missiles, spellcasting, position on the battlefield and chance to Engage, etc) has NO CHANCE to affect the moving character.

[EpicureanDM]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

I only do "Phase 2" movement when 2 conditions are met:

1 - The moving SoI involves moving as the entirety SoI, and never becoming Engaged.

2 - Every other SoI (missiles, spellcasting, position on the battlefield and chance to Engage, etc) has NO CHANCE to affect the moving character.

That's how I think of it, too, but worry (just slightly) about when to resolve non-combat actions that won't be affecting the acting character. My go-to example for the moment is lifting a portcullis while the rest of the party fights. If no one's can or will mess with the lifting PC, then should it be resolved in Phase 2? Probably not, since other intents could be predicated on the lift, e.g. We're going to move through the gate if the lift succeeds. 

Phase 2 is really such a weird little exception to hold onto from RQ2.

[g33k]

1 hour ago, EpicureanDM said:

My go-to example for the moment is lifting a portcullis while the rest of the party fights. If no one's can or will mess with the lifting PC, then should it be resolved in Phase 2? Probably not, since other intents could be predicated on the lift, e.g. We're going to move through the gate if the lift succeeds. 

I see 2 "good" ways to resolve this; I do not see that either is more-supported by the RAW than the other... 

1.  As you suggest, a "conditional" SoI -- I will do 'X' until the gate opens enough, at which point I will go through.

2.  Because it isn't even clear the Lifting PC can lift the portcullis (or by how much), that SoI is nonsensical; you need to wait for the gate to BE open before your SoI to dash through it, roll under it, etc.  Assuming they lift this round, you can SoI for it NEXT round.

I allow for a conditional SoI as per #1, but only a single condition in combat situations, and (I'd need to think about it) the uncertainty of "just how open" & "how do I actually execute the act of 'going through' the gate" might be too much, or I might apply some extra penalty or "must roll to succeed" or somesuch.

 

But in the end... I don't think it matters.  No world-simulating ruleset can be 100% complete, or it would be the size of the world.  Players will always find exceptions and loopholes, and the GM will always need to issue rulings.  So, we have resolutions (at least 2, I may have missed some) that don't violate either RAW or (imho) common-sense / verisimilitude.  Pick one and play!  Discuss after-session if your group wants to HR the issue.

 

 

[Bill the barbarian]

7 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

Example 1: PC's DEX SR is 2. Character's SoI is, "I will move behind the nearby wall that's nine meters away and cast Heal 3." Actions will occur in that order. Under my potential house rule, PC starts moving on SR 1 and is behind the wall by SR 3. Otherwise, they start on SR 2 and get there on SR 5.

 

Just a slight change to make a point EpicureanDM. Make it 6m. Now, this makes it a heck of a lot harder to hit him before he gets to the wall for an archer of spell slinger. They will  have to wait for their DEX SRM before shooting or casting a one point spell. Should they be of equal DEX SRM as our runner (2) or slower(3 or 4), they will be firing on a target obscured by a barrier, with a superior DEX SRM (1 or 0) the archer or spell slinger will get a shot off at the target before the barrier. Under RAW the equal or superior archer/spell slinger (remember he would have to be using a 1 point spirit magic spell for a 0 SR) would get a shot off before he hides behind the wall and only the slower SRMs would have an obscured target.

CHeers

[Bill the barbarian]

6 hours ago, g33k said:

However, I would allow a SoI to allow a character to begin moving and still be moving at the end of the round, planning to keep moving next round, with the SoI next round being something along the lines of "keep moving (all round, into next round)" or "Finish moving, and Cast / Engage in melee / etc."

 

Not hard to how rule this and keeps the rules as written,

a PC already in motion will remain in motion.

Sir Isquacc Newton esq

That is not needing a DEX SRM modifier the second round of movement ((kinda like a sorcery spell).

[g33k]

21 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

...That is not needing a DEX SRM modifier the second round of movement ((kinda like a sorcery spell).

Not needing a DEX mod on successive rounds of nothing-but-movement:  2 rounds, 3 rounds, 4 rounds... however many rounds the SoI is "I move..." (and if there is an "until," that condition isnt satisfied; nor does a foe or other obstacle intervene).

OTOH, it looks a lot like a Phase 2 movement, at this point, and entirely off the SR scale.

 

[Bill the barbarian]

4 minutes ago, g33k said:

Not needing a DEX mod on successive rounds of nothing-but-movement:  2 rounds, 3 rounds, 4 rounds... however many rounds the SoI is "I move..." (and if there is an "until," that condition isnt satisfied; nor does a foe or other obstacle intervene).

 OTOH, it looks a lot like a Phase 2 movement, at this point, and entirely off the SR scale.

Point one) True

Point two) Alas, and  putting a 6m hypothetical barrier up again... That is at the time of the SOI (new round) our hypothetical runner is 6m away and has been running for at least a part of the last round if not more. He states he will run and jump over the barrier while our archer/spell slinger with a one point spirit spell or arrow/quarrel nocked and ready with an SRM  equal to runner who has a DEX SRM of 2. It just dawned on me, I forgot to start movement on SR 2 last time and then adding in the SRM, damn. That means that RAW equal SRMs with 6m to move, no unobscured shot as the runner starts at SR 2 and the range firer fires at SR 2 when our runner has covered no ground. The runner will get to or over easily. it is when we use your mods that it becomes dicy (pun, what pun, I do not see a pun). that is the difference SRMs determines whether or not he makes it. This makes sense that it comes down to SRs when a PC is in motion and connoting in motion I suppose, but not much sense when he is not moving at SOI and facing ranged fire. All things being equal, except the archer being ready and the runner 6m away I think the shot/spell should get off at the same time motion begins Unless our runner can beat time, he is subject to an obscured shot/spell and if in motion and the spell is prepared, them the race is on... may the best SR win. 

no?